'Suspension of MPs Must Be Last Resort': Former LS Secretary General PDT Achary

As a record number of over 140 Opposition MPs in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha stand suspended during the ongoing Winter Session of Parliament as of Tuesday, 19 December, The Quint speaks to former Lok Sabha Secretary General PDT Achary, who discusses the rules for suspension, the current state of parliamentary affairs, and more.

Read the edited excerpts of the interview here:

1. What are your very first thoughts on what we are witnessing in Parliament right now?

The House has the power to suspend any member who obstructs the business of the House or disregards the authority of the Chair. These are two grounds that are given in the rules.

But then, suspension is something that is resorted to only as the last resort. Suspension cannot be done as soon as a member stands up and defies the Chair. That is not how it is.

If it is an aggravated form of misconduct in the House, an aggravated form of obstruction of the House's business, and a very determined defiance of the authority of the Chair, then yes. The Chair should be left with no option but to suspend a person. That is normally when a suspension takes place. And that has been so all along.

After all, they are Members of Parliament and they are called the lawmakers of this country. So, when an MP is suspended from the sittings of the House, the House is being deprived of the services of that MP. The House consists of MPs; the House means MPs.

Naturally, suspension will be done as a last resort and it is done for a certain number of days, and after that, they can come back. Or, it is also provided in the rules that the House can move a resolution, pass a resolution, and terminate the suspension. This is the position so far as the rules are concerned, and this has been the practice.

But now, suddenly, a large number of members are being suspended from the House – that, too, when they are demanding that the Home Minister make a statement on what happened in Parliament, a serious security breach. The whole issue arises out of that.

Now, of course, they [the Opposition MPs] have protested in the House and held placards, which was disapproved by the Speaker – and the Speaker went ahead naming them. The motion was moved and they were suspended.

But this is unprecedented, with one exception. There was such a large-scale suspension in 1989 when Rajiv Gandhi was prime minister – in the context of the Bofors issue. There were huge protests, and the government was not able to function. In that situation, there was a wholesale suspension of MPs. Around 63 members were suspended at that time. That was also unprecedented.

"Never before did such a thing take place. After that, it is now that such a large number of MPs are being suspended."

The whole issue arises out of the recent Parliament security breach. You had witnessed the 2001 Parliament attacks, and over 20 years later, a breach has happened again. What went wrong then – and what went wrong this time? What is the need of the hour?

This is a question related to the whole security arrangement in Parliament. After the 2001 attack, security has been tightened considerably. But any threat to the House – that is the chamber – can only come from the gallery and nowhere else.

Now, what kind of threat? People are coming there after being screened properly, frisked, and made to pass through the metal detector doorframe. All these things are done, and only after that are they allowed to come in. They are not even allowed to carry a handkerchief. That is the level of precaution that is taken, that is the level of security that is there.

After that, they come in and sit on a bench. On both sides of the bench, you have security people. Two security men on each bench, on either end. They are in plain clothes. If a visitor is sitting between them, and you so much as move your hand, they will immediately restrain you and say no. You are not allowed to stretch your legs. If you open your mouth to say something, they will close your mouth and take you out of the Gallery – physically carry you out of the Gallery.

That is the level of security in the Gallery. And these security men are very alert. When they are sitting there, they will be watching the visitors, they are not looking at the House or what goes on in the House.

In such a situation, I really wonder how it [the recent breach] happened. It baffles me. Two persons got up – they had to get up first because without doing that they couldn't have jumped. Generally, the moment a visitor gets up from their seat, the security men will catch him. These security men are from the Delhi Police, they are well-trained to deal with such situations. They can easily overpower people.

When that is the level of security in the gallery, how is it that these people were allowed? Why were they not caught? They managed to jump into the House and do whatever they did. Here, the question is, what level of alertness was there on the part of the security men? That is a serious lapse, that they didn't intercept them. That needs to be looked into.

"Moreover, the machine through which they had to pass did not catch the tiny thing they were hiding in their shoes. That is also very surprising to me because I was once in charge of all these things – management and security. I used to take a personal interest in these things. I used to have discussions with senior police officers."

Opposition leaders have said they followed procedure before raising slogans in the Well of the House. Under what circumstances can an MP be suspended from the Houses? What is the protocol involved?

An MP can be suspended if he disregards the authority of the Chair or he persistently or wilfully obstructs the business of the House. These are significant words – "wilfully and persistently". That means there is a deliberateness on the MP's part – he does it and he persists with it. Here, the question is whether their [the MPs'] conduct had reached that level, where the Speaker would seriously think about naming them and suspending them.

"But as I said, merely because they stand up and defy the Chair – because most of the time, people do that and that can also be considered a defiance of the Chair – that doesn't merit suspension. That is why I said it is a very aggravated form of obstruction that merits suspension."

What do you have to say about the Chair – has there been a misuse of powers in naming and suspending the MPs?

I would not make any comment on that. Rules empower the Chair to name a person, and the House has the power to suspend a person. I don't see anything beyond that.

There has also been a trend of Bills being passed without proper debate in Parliament. What can Opposition MPs do to prevent this?

This is something that has assumed serious proportions. Many Bills get passed without any discussion, which is something that cannot be allowed. Everything that comes from the House should be discussed thoroughly, because they affect the public in significant ways. It is the responsibility of the House to discuss Bills and other matters.

When that is not possible, then what the government does is that it passes the Bill in a ruckus. That is not a good practice and should be discontinued.

Prior to this, Mahua Moitra was expelled, which many have called out for not following the Parliament convention. What is your take on this?

Mohua Moitra's case was an expulsion. That means, her membership goes. Suspension is only for a certain period, after that, the MP comes back to the House. In this case, there was a committee that gave a report, and based on that report, she was expelled from the House. Whether that was proper or not, a case has been filed in the court.

The Supreme Court has to see whether proper procedure was followed, whether there is any merit in the allegation against her, which has been looked into by this committee. At this stage, I can't say anything more on that.

Do the Parliamentary proceedings today require a systemic change? Where are we today as a democracy if the MPs who represent the public are not allowed to ask questions?

This is a serious problem because MPs come here to discuss issues concerning the people, concerning the governance of the country. So, if they are not allowed to do that, that is a serious thing.

MPs have the right to demand discussion and response from the government. It is a right which emanates from Article 75(3) of the Constitution of India. It says the Council of Ministers are collectively responsible for the House of the People.

So, the Council of Ministers – that is the government – has the responsibility to respond to demands in the House. They are accountable to the House.

Another aspect of this accountability is the right of the members to demand a response from the government. So, from that point of view, if they demand a statement from a minister on the security breach in Parliament, the government has a responsibility to come before the House and clarify issues.